1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 119 of 2010 Nohar Singh S/o Kripal Singh aged about 32 yrs R/o Shiv Nagar (Rajiv Nagar) Tahsil & District, Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Manohar Lal Sharma aged about 50 years. 2 – Smt. Manisha Sharma W/o Ashok Kumar Sharma aged about 43 yrs. Both are R/o Shanichari Bazar, Durg Tahsil & District, Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Neelkanth Malaviya, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Judgment on Board 29/10/2025 1. The present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 has been filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.08.2010 passed by learned 8th Additional District Judge (FTC) Durg, District Durg in Civil Suit No. 7-B/2007, by which a decree for recovery of Rs. 56,100/- along with the interest @ 5 % per annum has been granted in favour of the plaintiffs. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs have filed civil suit before the learned trial Court claiming the recovery of Rs. 73,700/- from the defendant with the pleading that the plaintiffs are husband and wife and they are residing at Shanichari Bazar, Durg. They are well acquainted with the defendants and since they are well acquainted there was frequent money transactions between them. The defendant has borrowed Rs. 32,000/- on 18.07.2004, Rs. 25,000/- on 20.07.2004, Rs. 3000/- on 29.09.2004, Rs. ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.11.04 10:24:26 +0530 2 12000/- on 12.01.2005, Rs. 3000/- on 15.01.2005, Rs. 6000/- on 25.01.2005 and Rs. 9000/- on 09.05.2005 and thus the defendant had borrowed total Rs. 90,000/- from the plaintiffs and in lieu thereof he executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiffs for its re-payment. The defendant in lieu of its re- payment issued a check of Rs. 57,000/- in favour of the plaintiffs on 20.02.2005. When the plaintiffs obtained information from the bank, it was informed that there was no sufficient balance in the bank account of the defendant. The defendant had refunded an amount of Rs. 6,300/- on 18.08.2005 and Rs. 10,000/- through the cheque and thus out of total Rs. 90,000/-, Rs. 16,300/- have been re-paid by the defendant and Rs. 73,700/- is outstanding amount against him. On being repeated demand made by them the defendant have not paid the said amount and evaded to pay the same. They served a legal demand notice through their counsel but the defendant has refused to accept the said legal demand notice and send it back, therefore, the cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff on 12.02.2007 and then the present suit for recovery of Rs. 73,700/- has been filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant. 3. After service of summons upon the defendant, he made an application under Order 37 Rule 3 (5) of the CPC on 17.09.2007 stating therein grounds of his defence which was allowed vide order dated 07.03.2008 and the defendant was permitted to defend the suit filed by the plaintiffs and the contents of the grounds of his defence has been considered as his written statement. The defendant has raised contention that he borrowed Rs. 20,000/- from the plaintiffs on 27.07.2002 and gave him a cheque No. 004055 of Krishak Sewa Sahakari Samiti. He pledged the golden chain to the defendant for Rs. 12,000/- and thus he borrowed only Rs. 32,000/- from the plaintifs and after its calculation of interest, the total amount comes to Rs. 57,000/- for which he issued a cheque No. 059220 which was of State Bank of India, Malaviya Nagar, Durg branch and he also paid Rs. 9,600/- cash in various installments 3 to the plaintiffs. He also stated that he paid Rs. 4,000/- on 27.08.2004 through cheque No. 059206 Rs. 6,300/- on 18.08.2005 through cheque No. 063816 Rs.10,000/- through cheque No. 394954 and Rs. 4,000/- through cheque No. 394962 and thus the defendant had already repaid Rs. 33,900/- and after its adjustment, total of Rs. 23.100/- is outstanding against him which is payable to the plaintiffs. He denied the issuance of promissory note in favour of the plaintiffs and submitted that the plaintiffs has obtained his signature overall blank promissory note at the time of purchasing TV which are misusing by him. 4. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned trial Court has framed the following issues: द श न 1. गण अस उन ग न प ल 90,000/- प उ १ 2. न उ! उ " # 16,300/-$प % प गण १ 3. गण स 73,700/- $प पस लन नल %& १ 4. गण स # 32,000/- 'प नग उ ल ( १ 5. गण 33,900/- $प ग न ) %&१ 6. गण स 23,100/- $प लन % नल %& १ 7. गण 28.310 * स न )&न ब, ग न %" १ 8. स% ए. / १ 5. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence led by the parties held that the defendant has borrowed Rs. 90,000/- from the plaintiffs but the defendant could not prove his contention of repayment of the borrowed amount and after the adjustment of the amount borrowed and amount re-paid to the plaintiffs, a total of Rs. 43,000/- came to be outstanding against the defendant for which the plaintiffs are entitled for its recovery and has passed the decree to that extent in favour of the plaintiffs. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court is perverse and erroneous on the law as well as facts. There is no cogent evidence with respect to the 4 advancing loan of Rs. 90,000/- to the defendant. The plaintiffs and his witnesses have admitted the re-payment of the major part of the borrowed amount but the same has not be considered by the learned trial Court in its true perspective. The plaintiffs have claimed refund of Rs. 73,000/- whereas the learned trial Court has found the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of Rs. 56,100/- which is itself sufficient to consider that the case of the plaintiff is not bona fide, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed. 7. None appears on behalf of the Respondent though served. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the trial Court. 9. The plaintiff Ashok Kumar Sharma PW-2 have stated in his evidence as per his plaint averment and stated that there is outstanding amount of Rs. 73,700/- against the defendant for which he is entitled for its recovery. He proved the promissory note Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/7, cheque of State Bank of India Ex.P/8 registered notice Ex.P/9 postal receipt Ex.P/10 and its acknowledgment Ex.P/11, the envelope Ex.P/12 and a complaint to the CSP Ex.P/13. In cross-examination the suggestion was given to him that he has taken a cheque of Rs. 57,000/- from the defendant but has not produced it in the bank for its clearance. He voluntarily stated that the defendant have stopped him to produce it in the bank. He denied that he pledged his golden chain with the defendant. He also admitted that he obtained signature over the promissory note Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/7 of the defendant. In his name and his wife’s name. The defendant Nohar Singh Sonwani has been examined as DW-1 and has admitted in his cross-examination in Para-11 that in his written statement he has not denied that he has not signed any promissory note. He admitted that there was transaction with the plaintiffs with respect to the cash amount. He further admitted in Para -17 that he has not produced any document with respect to the pleading of the golden chain with the plaintiffs. 5 10. The defendant Nohar Singh Sonwani has also admitted in his evidence that on 27.07.2002 he borrowed Rs. 20,000/- from the plaintiffs and given a cheque to the plaintiffs. On 14.10.2002 he had gone to the shop of the plaintiffs and pledged his golden chain for Rs. 12,000/- and thus he borrowed Rs. 32,000/- from the plaintiffs out of which he repaid Rs. 20,000/- through the cheque to him. On the amount of Rs. 32,000/-, the interest of Rs. 25,000/- was settled and thus he was required to pay Rs. 67,000/- and in lieu thereof he issued a cheque of Rs. 67,000/- to the plaintiffs. He already paid Rs. 33,900/- to the plaintiffs in various installments. He further admitted that if the plaintiffs return his golden chain he is ready to repay an amount of Rs. 23,100/- to him. 11. When the defendant has admitted his signature over the promissory note Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/7, he admitted the transaction with the plaintiffs on various occasions. He also admitted that the total liability was of Rs. 67,000/- for which he issued a cheque Ex.P/8 to the plaintiffs, however, yet the defendant has not filed any counter claim and challenged the claim of the plaintiffs. The learned trial Court has considered the entire evidence available on record and preponderance probability and found the existing liability of Rs. 56,100/- against the defendant appellant and a decree the suit for the said amount of Rs. 56,100/- along with the interest @ 5 % per annum. 12. Having gone through the entire pleadings as well as evidence available on record, this Court do not find any scope of interference in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. 13. Accordingly, the present first appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. 14. Parties shall bear their own costs. 15. An appellate decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok